Interpretation of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, and Criminal Matter

By FindLaw Staff on July 09, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In re: Mouzon Enters., Inc., No. 09-13330, involved a creditor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's order holding that the motion filed by debtor seeking to vacate the Consent Order was not barred under Rule 9024.  The court of appeals reversed on the ground that the bankruptcy court erred in holding that an order resolving a claim that has been objected to, but not litigated, constitutes an order "entered without a contest" for the purposes of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024.

In US v. Thompson, No. 08-13658, the court of appeals affirmed defendants' robbery convictions and sentences, on the grounds that 1) at the time the government rested its case-in-chief, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions on the firearms violations; and 2) because one defendant had previously committed an armed robbery with the other, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant knew his codefendant would use a firearm in subsequent robberies.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard